Incarnation and Transubstantiation

[Truthstalker]

I have this wild thought that I would like to tie down, and it is that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a direct result of the theology of the incarnation: the way God the Son became man is expressed similarly in what happens during the Eucharist, and, correspondingly, how we view what happens in the Eucharist is how we view the doctrine of the incarnation. I suspect they are linked: the phrase “the seamless garb of Catholic theology” is on my lips here.

What this would mean is that if you have an incorrect view of one, you view the other wrongly. If, for example, you believe in consubstantiation or a purely symbolic Eucharist, it necessarily follows that something is very wrong with your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation, and the converse is also true.

I’m asking both Catholics and Protestants if this is true.

 

[rr1213]

Interesting thought, but I think that you are asserting a linkage that is not necessarily the case. The incarnation is God made Man. The Eucharist is Man partaking of God. All Protestants of whom I am aware accept the incarnation. As you mentioned, many do not accept the Eucharist in the manner of the Catholic Church, particularly transubstantiation. Still, even for those who see the Eucharist as purely symbolic, I don’t see how they are incorrectly viewing the incarnation. In other words, being wrong (or right) in one area does not necessarily lead to being wrong (or right) in the other.

 

[momstheword]

Perhaps I have misunderstood your prior posts, but you do not believe in the True Presence, or the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, right?
So are you having an epiphany, or is this bait?

 

[VociMike]

I completely agree that the Incarnation and the substantial Real Presence (Transubstantiation) are all part of the same initiative of God. They are both aspects of God uniting fully with His creation and in particular with His people. And I agree that to misunderstand one is to misunderstand the other. I would go further and include Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection in this grouping. Misunderstand one and you misunderstand them all.

 

[rr1213]

Perhaps I have misunderstood your prior posts, but you do not believe in the True Presence, or the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, right?
So are you having an epiphany, or is this bait?

It’s not bait. I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but not in transubstantiation.

 

[Truthstalker]

Perhaps I have misunderstood your prior posts, but you do not believe in the True Presence, or the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, right?
So are you having an epiphany, or is this bait?

I believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way.

I believe there is only one Church, one faith, one Lord, one baptism for the remission of sins.

I believe there is one holy catholic and apostolic church, but it is not identical to the Church with headquarters in Rome. I believe in the catholic, the universal church. I believe in apostolic authority as faithfully passed down in the teaching of the apostles, and that those who deny that teaching and teach others to do so have forsaken the calling of God and are the wolves Paul warned the Ephesians about, so that the faithful teaching by faithful men outweighs the apostolic succession of the laying on of hands.

I believe God works through the Catholic Church. I believe He can work sacramentally, and I don’t have all the answers.

This is not bait. I have epiphanies both towards Protestant belief and towards Catholic. If there is a definite link between the incarnation and transubstantiation, I would like to see it. We all agree, I hope, on the incarnation. This would be a way of bringing us back together. Ut unum sint. I’d like to think I have never baited anyone on CAF, and I am sorry to think that I have posted in a way to indicate I am the sort of person who baits people, or that someone could demonstrate to me a post that would suggest I have baited someone in it.

 

[rr1213]

I completely agree that the Incarnation and the substantial Real Presence (Transubstantiation) are all part of the same initiative of God. They are both aspects of God uniting fully with His creation and in particular with His people. And I agree that to misunderstand one is to misunderstand the other. I would go further and include Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection in this grouping. Misunderstand one and you misunderstand them all.

Please explain how it is not possible to have a completely “catholic” view of the incarnation, yet believe something different than transubstantiation? Remember that even from the Catholic viewpoint, Protestants “get it right” on some theological points. Why isn’t the incarnation one of these, even if we “get it wrong” on the Eucharist? Why are the two necessarily linked, so that error in one are necessarily leads to error in the other? I see the assertion that you are making; I don’t see the logic or rationale to support that assertion. We need something more here than merely saying so.

 

[Truthstalker]

Please explain how it is not possible to have a completely “catholic” view of the incarnation, yet believe something different than transubstantiation? Remember that even from the Catholic viewpoint, Protestants “get it right” on some theological points. Why isn’t the incarnation one of these, even if we “get it wrong” on the Eucharist? Why are the two necessarily linked, so that error in one are necessarily leads to error in the other? I see the assertion that you are making; I don’t see the logic or rationale to support that assertion. We need something more here than merely saying so.

Well put.

 

[VociMike]

Please explain how it is not possible to have a completely “catholic” view of the incarnation, yet believe something different than transubstantiation? Remember that even from the Catholic viewpoint, Protestants “get it right” on some theological points. Why isn’t the incarnation one of these, even if we “get it wrong” on the Eucharist? Why are the two necessarily linked, so that error in one are necessarily leads to error in the other? I see the assertion that you are making; I don’t see the logic or rationale to support that assertion. We need something more here than merely saying so.

Because if you reject the substantial Real Presence then you think that Christ only fully joined with His Creation for 33 years and then pulled away and provided the world from that point on with only a partial, spiritual union, leaving out His flesh and blood from this union and leaving out our flesh and blood from this union. Whereas in the substantial Real Presence in the Eucharist, Christ, once He became Incarnate, has never stopped being fully joined (body, blood, soul and divinity) with His creation and His people.

 

[FCEGM]

I have this wild thought that I would like to tie down, and it is that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a direct result of the theology of the incarnation: the way God the Son became man is expressed similarly in what happens during the Eucharist, and, correspondingly, how we view what happens in the Eucharist is how we view the doctrine of the incarnation. I suspect they are linked: the phrase “the seamless garb of Catholic theology” is on my lips here.

What this would mean is that if you have an incorrect view of one, you view the other wrongly. If, for example, you believe in consubstantiation or a purely symbolic Eucharist, it necessarily follows that something is very wrong with your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation, and the converse is also true.

I’m asking both Catholics and Protestants if this is true.

:yup: :yup:

The article I quoted here addresses this in part:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1694744#post1694744

 

[FCEGM]

Because if you reject the substantial Real Presence then you think that Christ only fully joined with His Creation for 33 years and then pulled away and provided the world from that point on with only a partial, spiritual union, leaving out His flesh and blood from this union and leaving out our flesh and blood from this union. Whereas in the substantial Real Presence in the Eucharist, Christ, once He became Incarnate, has never stopped being fully joined (body, blood, soul and divinity) with His creation and His people.

Precisely, Mike.

 

[rr1213]

Because if you reject the substantial Real Presence then you think that Christ only fully joined with His Creation for 33 years and then pulled away and provided the world from that point on with only a partial, spiritual union, leaving out His flesh and blood from this union and leaving out our flesh and blood from this union. Whereas in the substantial Real Presence in the Eucharist, Christ, once He became Incarnate, has never stopped being fully joined (body, blood, soul and divinity) with His creation and His people.

An intriguing perspective, but not compelling. Protestants don’t believe that Jesus fully joined with his creation for only 33 years. The incarnation is when God became Man. Jesus remains this very day both fully God and fully man, physically sitting at the right hand of the father in heaven now. Once joined with man at the incarnation, Jesus has never ceased being fully man and fully God. (Although he was separated from the Father when crucified as he took on our sins, the Father looked away, and Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). When Jesus left his disciples and ascended into heaven, he promised: (i) that he would return and (ii) that he would send us a comforter, the Holy Sprit who would be with us. None of this diminishes Jesus’ continued status as both God and man.

I fail to see a logical nexus between the incarnation and transubstantiation. If it is true that to err in the understanding of one is to necessarily err in the other, then you need to show how the Protestant understanding of the incarnation, not the Eucharist, is in error.

 

[jpusateri]

… Jesus remains this very day both fully God and fully man, physically sitting at the right hand of the father in heaven now…

Very interesting! Can you tell me what Jesus means by “I am with you always, until the end of the age.” in Matthew 28:20?

 

[Truthstalker]

What is really going on in the universe? Please answer in three sentences or less.

I see I have come up with a theological statement Catholics seem to agree with, and then demand they prove it. I’m reading Theodoret, who was truly one of those who spelled out the doctrine of the incarnation to a degree that stuns me. I wonder what Aquinas and Augustine and others had to weigh in on the issue. To answer the challenge would require an in-depth understanding of both doctrines: incarnation and transubstantiation, and the semantic skills to translate the concepts from the linguistic map of Catholicism into something comprehensible to Protestants, typically unacquainted with the above writers.

Paul, in Colossians, has much to say about the One who upholds the universe by the word of his power, creates it and sustains it. In a sense in transubstantiation, if I understand it at all, God is present twice: once as the sustainer of all things, as He is everywhere, and again specially in His flesh - Is His divine nature there twice, once in each role? No, He is there only once, so it must be only the flesh that is making a special appearance - flesh that, according to Hebrews, has been elevated to deity. Some of this is perhaps Catholic, other parts my own wild thoughts.

 

[Atreyu]

Perhaps I have misunderstood your prior posts, but you do not believe in the True Presence, or the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, right?
So are you having an epiphany, or is this bait?

I can’t stand this type of accusation. Click here to see why.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way.

TS-

This is off topic, I think, but I would like to ask a question or two.

My mom was ordained an elder in the Presbyterian Church while my dad was ordained a deacon. Guess who the boss is in that house! I’m not very familiar with Presbyterian sacraments, so I don’t know whether “ordained” is the right word, and I’d be curious to know your thoughts on female elders.

However, my real question is about your belief in the real presence: Is this an unusual position for a Presbyterian?

I was not under the impression that Presbyterians generally believe this doctrine.

Finally, what is the Presbyterian position on infant baptism and baptismal regeneration?

TIA.

 

[VociMike]

…you need to show how the Protestant understanding of the incarnation, not the Eucharist, is in error.

It is in error because it treats the Incarnation more as an episode than as a fundamental, permanent and ongoing change not just in Christ but in God’s union with His creation and His people.

 

[Randy_Carson]

An intriguing perspective, but not compelling. Protestants don’t believe that Jesus fully joined with his creation for only 33 years. The incarnation is when God became Man. Jesus remains this very day both fully God and fully man, physically sitting at the right hand of the father in heaven now. Once joined with man at the incarnation, Jesus has never ceased being fully man and fully God. (Although he was separated from the Father when crucified as he took on our sins, the Father looked away, and Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). When Jesus left his disciples and ascended into heaven, he promised: (i) that he would return and (ii) that he would send us a comforter, the Holy Sprit who would be with us. None of this diminishes Jesus’ continued status as both God and man.

I fail to see a logical nexus between the incarnation and transubstantiation. If it is true that to err in the understanding of one is to necessarily err in the other, then you need to show how the Protestant understanding of the incarnation, not the Eucharist, is in error.

RR-

I think everything you have written above about the Incarnation is correct; therefore, if (and this is intended as a pretty big “If”) there is some defiency in the Protestant understanding of the Incarnation, it is probably due to an omission of aspects of the Incarnation that go beyond what you have written. Therefore, I’m personally willing to say that what you wrote looks fine.

However, I don’t think you could agree with our position that Christ is also present (body, blood, soul and divinity) in the Eucharist, and therefore, really present in every tabernacle in every Catholic Church in the world. Therefore, Jesus is not just in heaven but also sacramentally present here on earth, as well.

I’ll leave the fuller treatment of the Protestant understanding of the Incarnation to the professional apologists, but even this humble amateur knows enough to argue against the metaphorical interpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper narratives.

 

[exiled]

I can’t stand this type of accusation. Click here to see why.

Well, I can certainly agree with your exhortation to charity, however “mom” did ask based on TS’s other posts.
It seems reasonable to ask if perhaps through all of the discussions TS has had here at CAF, something might have clicked and now he/she is delving deeper into Catholic theology.
I think “accusation” is a strong word…

 

[E.E.N.S]

I believe Christ is present in the Eucharist in a real way.

I believe there is only one Church, one faith, one Lord, one baptism for the remission of sins.

**I believe there is one holy catholic and apostolic church, but it is not identical to the Church with headquarters in Rome. **I believe in the catholic, the universal church. I believe in apostolic authority as faithfully passed down in the teaching of the apostles, and that those who deny that teaching and teach others to do so have forsaken the calling of God and are the wolves Paul warned the Ephesians about, so that the faithful teaching by faithful men outweighs the apostolic succession of the laying on of hands.

I believe God works through the Catholic Church. I believe He can work sacramentally, and I don’t have all the answers.

This is not bait. I have epiphanies both towards Protestant belief and towards Catholic. If there is a definite link between the incarnation and transubstantiation, I would like to see it. We all agree, I hope, on the incarnation. This would be a way of bringing us back together. Ut unum sint. I’d like to think I have never baited anyone on CAF, and I am sorry to think that I have posted in a way to indicate I am the sort of person who baits people, or that someone could demonstrate to me a post that would suggest I have baited someone in it.

(Note higlights) - Sorry to go off topic here, but I am confused. You say that you believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and the apostolic authority that has been passed down to us…but at the same time you think that it is not the Catholic Church? Then are you implying that it is the Orthodox Church?

Just curious.

Back to the topic now!